Attached Form

The appraisal is also marked 1 to 35, and 1.

A. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, D, E, and F respectively share 10/70, Defendant G, and Defendant H 3/70, respectively, and Defendant H 4/70.

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant C, D, E, and F wish to divide the instant forest by sharing the portion 5,577 square meters in part 5,577 square meters (hereinafter “A land”) on the ship connected in sequence 1 through 35, and 1 of the attached appraisal among the instant forest, according to their respective shares, and Defendant B, G, H, and I did not present any opinion as to the division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, the court shall order the partition according to the ratio of shares by a reasonable method, comprehensively taking into account the co-ownership relation or the overall situation of the things which are the objects thereof. In the case of the partition of co-owned property in kind, the remaining co-owners who do not want the partition of the forest of this case are allowed to share the forest of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da27819, Dec. 7, 1993). The co-owners of the forest of this case do not present any spot partition plan. The method of partition of co-owned property in kind in principle is, in principle, in the case of the partition of co-owned property in kind, it is possible to order the auction partition only when the value thereof is difficult to divide in kind or if it is remarkably difficult to divide in kind, or if it is made in kind, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case as stated in the order, taking into account the fact that the division like the order conforms to the majority

3. The conclusion is that the land of this case is divided in accordance with the Disposition No. 1.